The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to the business use of a site close to her home. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council did not take neighbour objections into account in allowing a change to a condition attached to a planning permission for a site close to her home. She says the new condition is poorly worded and as a result noise from the site has increased, along with vehicle movements, which has affected her enjoyment of her property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.
My assessment
Ms X complained to the Council that objections by her and other neighbours to a planning application to change a condition attached to a permission for a site close to her home were ignored. She also complained about the poor wording of the new condition and said her amenity had been negatively affected by the changes brought about by it.
The Council confirmed the objections received had been considered in determining the application and it addressed in some detail the issues raised by Ms X, including her view on the enforceability of the new condition. It said in its view the wording was specific enough and the condition enforceable. It confirmed that it was investigating the reports of planning breaches it had received and that it would update Ms X.
At Stage 2 of its complaints procedure about six months later, the Council accepted that it had not met the requirements set out in its customer charter in relation to its enforcement investigation. It confirmed a live investigation was taking place.
It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and we cannot question decisions made by councils which have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision to allow the change in condition.
There has been delay by the Council with regard to its enforcement investigation. However, it has acknowledged this, confirmed its investigation is still ongoing and I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman now would usefully add to the Council’s own investigation.
In responding to my draft decision Ms X says there are discrepancies with the hours of use of the site between a condition attached to the latest planning permission and a condition attached to an earlier permission. However, the overlap in hours is limited to a small number each week and the Council is satisfied it will be able to enforce the two conditions and says while it may be more difficult because of the nature of the two uses it would not be impossible. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to come to a different view.
The issues of noise and disturbance to nearby residents of the site were considered as part of the planning process when the last application was determined.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman